Hello Charles, you can take a look at the code in branches/Vaclav/common/clock.c vi viewvc.
Clarification: I do clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &tm) and if that fails with EINVAL and the user requested MONOTONIC_PREF (i.e. fall-back to RTC is allowed), I do another clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &tm) which should always work. However, I wonder whether this isn't too cautions; accordingly to the man, as long as _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK macro is defined, CLOCK_MONOTONIC is available. On the other hand, build on HPUX prooved that this may not be true; HPUX 11 defines _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK, but apparently doesn't define CLOCK_MONOTONIC. I mean, if this is possible, then it might also be possible that CLOCK_MONOTONIC is defined, but the call fails... The question is how pedantic/ paranoid should I be? THanks, vasek > ----------------------------- Eaton Elektrotechnika s.r.o. ~ S�dlo spolecnosti, jak je zaps�no v rejstr�ku: Kom�rovsk� 2406, Praha 9 - Horn� Pocernice, 193 00, Cesk� Republika ~ Jm�no, m�sto, kde byla spolecnost zaregistrov�na: Praha ~ Identifikacn� c�slo (ICO): 498 11 894 ----------------------------- -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Lepple [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 2:36 PM > To: Krpec, Vaclav > Cc: Arnaud Quette; Emilien KIA; [email protected] List > Subject: Re: [Nut-upsdev] NUT Bugs #313634 & #313714: unification & > encapsulation of timer proposition > > [adding nut-upsdev back to CC list.] > > > While you at it --- I've written the nut_clock_gettime POSIX > > implementation so that fallback from monotonic POSIX clock impl. to > > RTC is actually also done if the system defines _POSIX_MONOTONIC_CLOCK > > macro, but the call ends with EINVAL (i.e. not implemented) if monotonic > > clock > is requested. > > I thought that may be a bit over-protective; as soon as the OS defines > > the detection macro, we should be entitled to expect it to work; > > EINVAL should therefore be considered an error and propagated. > > I'm confused. Could you post pseudocode, or the actual patch, for what is > being > described above? > > -- > Charles Lepple > clepple@gmail > > _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
